O'Reilly: Supporters of liberalizing immigration bill* want to "change the complexion" of America

On the May 29 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, host Bill O'Reilly asserted that the "segment of the population" who, like The New York Times, wants to see some restrictions on migration in the Senate immigration bill eased or modified "hate America, and they hate it because it's run primarily by white, Christian men. Let me repeat that. America is run primarily by white, Christian men, and there is a segment of our population who hates that, despises that power structure." In an editorial, the Times criticized restrictions in the bill "that narrow[] the channels through which family members can immigrate," while also saying, "It is encouraging that the bill survived several attempts by that camp ['the restrictionist right'] to blow it apart."* O'Reilly continued: "So they, under the guise of being compassionate, want to flood the country with foreign nationals, unlimited, unlimited, to change the complexion -- pardon the pun -- of America. Now, that's hatred, too." O'Reilly later asserted that the Times "want[s] to change the white, Christian male power structure" and concluded: "So you've got racism on the anti-Latino front, and you have racism on the anti-Christian, white male front. Aha! Isn't that interesting?"

As Media Matters for America documented, O'Reilly has previously warned that pro-immigration activists want to alter the racial demographics of the United States. During the April 11, 2006, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly said of New York City Councilman Charles Barron: "[T]he bottom line is Charles Barron said last night is there is a movement in this country to wipe out 'white privilege' and to have the browning of America." In the April 11 interview with O'Reilly on Westwood One's The Radio Factor, Barron at no point claimed that he and other advocates for immigrant rights are motivated by a desire to force white Americans into the minority -- despite O'Reilly's repeated efforts to provoke such an acknowledgment.

From the May 29 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: OK, I think it's a small part, but I think it's there. On the other side, you have people who hate America, and they hate it because it's run primarily by white, Christian men. Let me repeat that. America is run primarily by white, Christian men, and there is a segment of our population who hates that, despises that power structure. So they, under the guise of being compassionate, want to flood the country with foreign nationals, unlimited, unlimited, to change the complexion -- pardon the pun -- of America. Now, that's hatred, too. It's a different kind of hatred, but it's hatred and best exemplified by The New York Times, which today says in its editorial, quote: "Those who want [the immigration] bill to be better are horribly conflicted by it. Their emotions still seem vastly overmatched by the ferocity of the opposition from the restrictionist right, with talk radio lighting up over 'amnesty,' callers spitting out the words with all the hate they can pour into it," unquote.

Now, this is a theme of The New York Times, that if you oppose the immigration bill that you hate Latinos. Now, there's a segment that does, but most oppose it on policy. They just think it's bad policy, rewarding bad behavior. Bad policy. But The New York Times, which is an open border, OK, let-everybody-in concern -- that's what they want, because they want a totally different power structure in America.

Number one, they realize that 40 million new citizens -- and that's, you know, probably the estimate that if you let all the illegal immigrants and all their extended families come here, which is what The New York Times want, would wipe out the two-party system. You'd only have a Democratic party, because new immigrants are probably gonna break 3-to-1 Democrat, and that's what The New York Times wants. But more than that, they want to change the white, Christian male power structure. That's what they want.

Now, these are hidden agendas. The New York Times would never cop to that, ever, but if you read consistently their editorials, they have no solution to border security. They don't want any sanctions on illegal aliens who come here and even commit crimes. They want criminal aliens to stay, and they don't want any sanctions on businesses who continue to hire illegal aliens even after the Z visa is issued. It's an open border, "Let them all in, anybody who wants to come here."

That's insane. We don't have America then. America disappears. That's where Pat Buchanan is right. You let that happen, there's no more United States of America. It's gone. You have United States of the World, because everybody comes here with no restrictions. So you've got racism on the anti-Latino front, and you have racism on the anti-Christian, white male front. Aha! Isn't that interesting?

*Clarification: The headline of this item initially read, "O'Reilly: Immigration bill supporters want to 'change the complexion' of America," and the item originally stated that O'Reilly claimed that "the proposed immigration reform bill is supported by 'people who hate America, and they hate it because it's run primarily by white, Christian men.' " O'Reilly's comments were in fact specifically targeted at those -- including The New York Times editorial board -- who want, among other things, to change provisions in the bill that would, in the Times' language, "narrow[] the channels through which family members can immigrate."

ABOUT THE VIDEOS

In addition to reviewing print and online media, Media Matters monitors at least 150 hours of television and radio each week. This section features highlights (or low-lights) from our monitoring efforts, other noteworthy clips as well as original videos.